# Email from President Bush



## chibnkr (May 2, 2007)

Here is the response I got from President Bush's office in response to my email opposing the tax increase:

Thank you for writing about your concern regarding a new proposal to raise the federal tobacco tax.

President Bush strongly opposes the proposed increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco products. Federal revenues are already above their historical average relative to the size of the economy, and the use of tax increases to fund spending increases is undesirable and inadvisable. The Administration is also concerned about the impact the proposed tax increase would have on state budgets, which have become increasingly dependent on tobacco-related taxes. Estimates suggest that a 61 cent per pack increase in the retail price of cigarettes would reduce state cigarette tax receipts by as much as 5 percent, or $750 million per year. An increase in federal cigarette taxes is also among the most regressive revenue raising measures one could propose. The Administration opposes any tax increase that consumes a larger percentage of the earnings of low-income families than those of middle- and upper-income families.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.


----------



## JCK (Nov 9, 2006)

what an excellent response.. thanks for sharing Mike.


----------



## rusty pittis (Jun 8, 2007)

hmmmmm..........what to think of that is baffling to me...


----------



## glking (Jul 20, 2007)

Hope he's getting ready to pull a veto out of his pocket!


----------



## Sawyer (Jul 11, 2007)

Sounds promising.


----------



## Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

Hope the veto gets on this one!! Big Pharma wants to push NO SMOKING because they want to sell nicotine like drugs and patches as fixes for smokers. It's Big drugs against Tobacco. The one that wins will be the one that lobbies the most and has the most money....Follow the MONEY!!

Some of the DRUGs can make a person quite scrapy and on edge and some people a bit psychotic. Welcome to todays America where the freedom to choose gets withered away. If it continues I see Expatriots leaving to countries where at least a simlitude of freedom resides.


----------



## No1der (Apr 2, 2007)

I was actually just about to post the same White House Response email as I just recieved the exact same email as you did.

I'm not big on Bush and I'm sure I'm not alone in those sentiments but I hope that he Veto's this bill ASAP...

I wouldn't mind a tax so much if it was equally spread out over the entire population but going after smokers because the are smokers is wrong any way you look at it. That's true for any group of people who are taxed as a form of punishment for doing a completely legal activity.

VETO this POS bill before the ink even dries...


----------



## Matthew (Aug 28, 2007)

Good information - thanks!

I never received responses from my Senators...


----------



## smokepiper (Jan 16, 2006)

I got the same response. 

Hopefully, this means the big veto pen is coming out. 

It's funny, I received responses from the senator I didn't vote for (S. Brown) and didn't receive a response the guy I voted for. (George Voignovich) I can say that ol' George isn't getting my vote when his next term is up. 

Raising taxes is never the answer.

D


----------



## yayson (Aug 21, 2006)

I just got the same letter and was coming to post it

now if I would hear something from my "representatives"


----------



## rgordin (Jan 6, 2007)

It would appear that the specific issue of the proposed increase of the cigar tax - its proportionate increase over the existing tax, its impact on domestic manufacturers and retailers, its impact on poorer countries that produce tobacco or manufacture cigars and its immediate application to existing inventory - is lost in the fray. I think that it too bad. These issues have merit independent of the tax on cigarettes or the provision of healthcare to children.


----------



## Troop_lee (Aug 10, 2007)

Bush has said many times that he will veto this bill, he is opposed to a tax increase. And it has been said that this tax is a step towards "socializing medical care" and that is something his adminstration is against.


----------



## thassanice (Apr 11, 2007)

I think the state budget argument is one of the better arguments that is being floated. States already rely tobacco taxes, so in essence, the federal government would be reducing the revenue that the states take in from tobacco sales in order to support the expansion of this program. It just really doesn't make sense for the purpose of a tax to generate revenue off the very activity it's also aiming to prevent.


----------



## CIGARTOYZ (Aug 6, 2007)

That is great news but you cant count your chickens until they hatch. But if things go as planed that is great news for everyone. Cigartoyz.com will soon be cigars and cigartoyz. This may be the best decision Bush has ever made.
:tu


----------



## coryj (Jul 31, 2007)

This brightened my day a little bit... say what you want about the man, but he seems to be 100% dead-on with his thinking on this issue. I especially liked the bit about tobacco taxes being "among the most regressive revenue raising measures one could propose"... so many politicians say "well, if we raise the taxes then more people will quit smoking"... no one ever seems to ask "then how are you going to continue collecting the money you need from said taxes?"


----------



## hova45 (Jun 17, 2007)

Best response I have seen so far.


----------



## coryj (Jul 31, 2007)

hova45 said:


> Best response I have seen so far.


Thankfully its from the office with the most power! :tu


----------



## Fenwick (May 8, 2007)

A very well thought out position on the issue and one that makes sense.


----------



## NCatron (Sep 7, 2005)

Bob said:


> Hope the veto gets on this one!! Big Pharma wants to push NO SMOKING because they want to sell nicotine like drugs and patches as fixes for smokers. It's Big drugs against Tobacco. The one that wins will be the one that lobbies the most and has the most money....Follow the MONEY!!
> 
> Some of the DRUGs can make a person quite scrapy and on edge and some people a bit psychotic. Welcome to todays America where the freedom to choose gets withered away. If it continues I see Expatriots leaving to countries where at least a simlitude of freedom resides.


Sorry, I had to reply because this one is just a bit far-out...

I work for big pharma, and the last thing we want is to become nicotine peddlers. For one thing, nicotine is not under patent by any company, so generics can make nicotine products... meaning the profit margins on nicotine products are razor thin.

In fact, we're researching lung cancer drugs, so if anything we would want MORE smokers so that we have someone to sell our lung cancer drug to :mn

(Disclaimer: We don't want more people to get lung cancer that was a joke!)


----------



## Budprince (Mar 29, 2007)

I've also heard and read that the President will veto this bill and from all accounts it sounds like there isn't enough votes to overtun the veto - hope he sticks to his guns on this one!


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl (Sep 8, 2005)

coryj said:


> This brightened my day a little bit... say what you want about the man, but he seems to be 100% dead-on with his thinking on this issue. I especially liked the bit about tobacco taxes being "among the most regressive revenue raising measures one could propose"... so many politicians say "well, if we raise the taxes then more people will quit smoking"... no one ever seems to ask "then how are you going to continue collecting the money you need from said taxes?"


Well, yes. Sales taxes are pretty much the definition of regressive taxation.

The sentence that caught my eye was "Federal revenues are already above their historical average relative to the size of the economy." If that's the case, and if it's a problem (which is debatable amongst economists if not amongst the rest of us), then I can think of a couple of ways he could save some money.


----------



## Bigwaved (May 20, 2006)

Corona Gigante said:


> Well, yes. Sales taxes are pretty much the definition of regressive taxation.
> 
> The sentence that caught my eye was "Federal revenues are already above their historical average relative to the size of the economy." If that's the case, and if it's a problem (which is debatable amongst economists if not amongst the rest of us), then I can think of a couple of ways he could save some money.


To the tune of about $7.4 million per hour?


----------



## c2000 (Oct 16, 2003)

Hey I've got a novel Idea,,,let the people that squeeze these kids out pay for their own insurance,, I'm sick and tired of paying for other people's problems/mistakes..Now the government is looking into helping out all the people that over extended on a house they bought and thought they would pay interest only payments at 3% forever,,,maybe they ought to look into taxing tobacco to pay for this too..

Jerry in Minnesota.


----------



## Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

NCatron said:


> Sorry, I had to reply because this one is just a bit far-out...
> 
> I work for big pharma, and the last thing we want is to become nicotine peddlers. For one thing, nicotine is not under patent by any company, so generics can make nicotine products... meaning the profit margins on nicotine products are razor thin.
> 
> ...


Like big pharma doesn't want cardiac drugs or diabetes drugs or people sick? Hmmmm....? I wonder where their business would be then?? Gotta wonder...? Like the fast food companies are into it for our health? I guess I fell off a turnip truck a long time ago!! Somehow I got the wrong idea about business, where did I go wrong??


----------



## Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

thassanice said:


> I think the state budget argument is one of the better arguments that is being floated. States already rely tobacco taxes, so in essence, the federal government would be reducing the revenue that the states take in from tobacco sales in order to support the expansion of this program. It just really doesn't make sense for the purpose of a tax to generate revenue off the very activity it's also aiming to prevent.


I gotta agree with ya on this one!! Very interesting is the idea that STATES would LOSE money by backing it. Seems kinda interesting that some of the Senators and Representatives....have their heads stuck up their A** on this one.

I suppose that they believe they will be helping the Health care industry down the road....Prevent more smokers getting cancer and dying and the government having to foot the bill for the perceived threat smokers are to the health care system.

Doing a supposed good deed...they can't see the forest for the trees!!


----------



## Sturat (May 7, 2006)

Sounds positive. Lets hope he follows through. :gn


----------



## SmokeyJoe (Oct 3, 2006)

Best news I have seen on the hike... WTG Pres. Bush! :ss


----------



## Sisyphus (Oct 9, 2005)

Bob said:


> Like big pharma doesn't want cardiac drugs or diabetes drugs or people sick?


I don't think anyone said otherwise. 

I, too, hope Bush follows through on the veto. No reason he wouldn't.

-Ken


----------



## Tbain (Aug 29, 2007)

Did he give you a phone number too?


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

I'm wondering, though, with the support that the Senate is giving this if there'll be enough for them to override the veto. I know there's still a lot of details to be worked out between the two versions of this bill, but with they way everyone feels about Bush, there just might be enough to push this through.

I hope everyone's still calling their senators and representatives.


----------



## drawfour (Aug 22, 2006)

12stones said:


> I'm wondering, though, with the support that the Senate is giving this if there'll be enough for them to override the veto. I know there's still a lot of details to be worked out between the two versions of this bill, but with they way everyone feels about Bush, there just might be enough to push this through.
> 
> I hope everyone's still calling their senators and representatives.


Unlikely. The Senate looks like it may have the 2/3 majority, but the House barely passed. There's no way that the House has a 2/3 majority (would require some major flip-flopping by Congressmen), and both houses must have a 2/3 majority to override the veto.

Interestingly enough, Bush is the first President since JFK and Lyndon Johnson to not have a veto overridden. You can see a list of vetos and overrides here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl (Sep 8, 2005)

drawfour said:


> Interestingly enough, Bush is the first President since JFK and Lyndon Johnson to not have a veto overridden. You can see a list of vetos and overrides here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes


Thanks for the link! I guess that might be related to the fact that Bush has issued the lowest number of vetoes (3) since James Garfield (0)--and Garfield was only President for 6½ months!


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

Corona Gigante said:


> Thanks for the link! I guess that might be related to the fact that Bush has issued the lowest number of vetoes (3) since James Garfield (0)--and Garfield was only President for 6½ months!


That would be my guess too.

Now, I'm wondering how long Congress can make this bill draw out...maybe Nov '08? :tu


----------



## thunderbucks (Mar 21, 2006)

I am fancied by the response--whether or not it will prove truthful in time to come, we shall see.


----------



## imike24 (Sep 14, 2007)

So far, everything seem alright. Will see what the future hold for him.
__________________
device patch exercises pills health fastsize proenhance weightloss


----------



## kjjm4 (May 8, 2007)

12stones said:


> That would be my guess too.
> 
> Now, I'm wondering how long Congress can make this bill draw out...maybe Nov '08? :tu


If I remember correctly, the original SCHIP expires this fall. If they really care about the kids like they keep claiming, they'll have to get on with trying to pass it soon.


----------

